Message
Anonymous wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/24/thomas-picketty-economics-data-errors
Thomas Piketty has lectured at the White House. His work is currently all the rage for touting income inequality as the wests most vexing issue.
However, the book may be based on fabrications and errors.
According to the article:
The Economist concluded that "analysis does not seem to support many of the allegations made by the FT, or the conclusion that the book's argument is wrong".
The Economist is generally considered pretty good on these kinds of things.
Anonymous wrote:Because we have the right of free exercise of our religion. Period.
That seems a little circular. It's important to pray in public because you have the freedom to do so?
I'm still confused by this thread.
So, let me summarize:
OP was on the rebound five years ago, dated a guy a few times, they slept together and then he dumped her.
Not long after that, OP's sister started dating the guy, and they have been dating ever since, but kept it secret from OP.
Now, OP has a new boyfriend, and OP's sister and rebound guy are getting married and the sister is pregnant.
OP's sister didn't invite OP to the wedding, allegedly because it makes the rebound guy uncomfortable, however, OP seems to keep focusing on the fact that "the guy knows what she looks like naked."
If having the OP around makes the rebound guy uncomfortable that must mean that he's somehow ashamed of how he treated her 5 years ago, which would be the basis for a reconciliation. Either that, or OP gives off a bad vibe every time she's around that makes everyone uncomfortable, which would be a sign that she hasn't actually gotten over the rebound guy.
On the other hand, the rebound guy might be getting the blame, and it's the OP's sister who feels uncomfortable with the OP because she feels guilty for hooking up with the rebound guy, or because the OP has actually been making her feel guilty over this for the last 5 years (despite claiming to be over it).
All in all, the pieces don't fit (leaving aside the fact that this sounds like it belongs on Maury or Montel).
So, let me summarize:
OP was on the rebound five years ago, dated a guy a few times, they slept together and then he dumped her.
Not long after that, OP's sister started dating the guy, and they have been dating ever since, but kept it secret from OP.
Now, OP has a new boyfriend, and OP's sister and rebound guy are getting married and the sister is pregnant.
OP's sister didn't invite OP to the wedding, allegedly because it makes the rebound guy uncomfortable, however, OP seems to keep focusing on the fact that "the guy knows what she looks like naked."
If having the OP around makes the rebound guy uncomfortable that must mean that he's somehow ashamed of how he treated her 5 years ago, which would be the basis for a reconciliation. Either that, or OP gives off a bad vibe every time she's around that makes everyone uncomfortable, which would be a sign that she hasn't actually gotten over the rebound guy.
On the other hand, the rebound guy might be getting the blame, and it's the OP's sister who feels uncomfortable with the OP because she feels guilty for hooking up with the rebound guy, or because the OP has actually been making her feel guilty over this for the last 5 years (despite claiming to be over it).
All in all, the pieces don't fit (leaving aside the fact that this sounds like it belongs on Maury or Montel).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you sleep with a guy after a few dates, while you are on a rebound, and he doesn't keep you trailing along, five years later he is fair game for your sister.
Actually no, they started dating months after he did what he did to me - they just hid it from me. -OP
So you're saying that your sister started dating a guy 5 years ago, got pregnant at some point, had a baby and now they are getting married and this is the first time you've ever heard that it was the guy you dated?
I'd say that you and your sister aren't close, anyway.
Anonymous wrote:FruminousBandersnatch wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:An atheist wrote a Little Red Book that other atheists used to treat like a holy book.
They got over it pretty quickly and were responsible for less death and suffering than the adherents of the book about Jesus.
By all means, let's minimize millions of deaths and displacements, so long as it involves atheists
Not at all. To call the impact of Mao's little red book a tragedy is even a gross understatement, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't an atheist who wrote, "An atheist wrote a Little Red Book that other atheists used to treat like a holy book." The truth is that it was written by a communist about an ideology called "communism," and had nothing to do with atheism, except for the fact that they saw religion as a competitor for the hearts and minds of the people they were trying to control. Trying to blame that on atheism is a red herring, at best.
However, the communists in China did treat Mao's book as something close to scripture, so let's look at what is supposed to be a real holy book.
My point was that while a great deal of harm was done by Mao's followers, the Chinese abandoned Mao's book as a guiding principle pretty quickly. Despite that, the human rights record in China continues to be atrocious, but if Christians are arguing that at least they're better than the Chinese that's a pretty low bar to get over.
What should we call a thousand years of use of the Bible to justify all kinds of war, massacre, atrocity, suffering, hatred, slavery, etc. that still goes on today? How often does a so-called Christian leader in this country go on TV waving the Bible to explain how some atrocity or tragedy is God's punishment for something? Given everything that book has and continues to be used to justify, is it really that much better?
As Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Can you really not see the parallel here? I think you can, or you wouldn't have needed to dive deep into the semantics (communists are atheists, but this isn't atheism per se) of the thing.
If you want to keep drawing parallels between Christianity/the Bible and Communism/Mao's Little Red Book, by all means feel free. I think some of your fellow Christians might join me in disagreeing with you.
I guess the real question here is what point are you trying to make as it relates to the parallel you're drawing?
I agree with the PP that you should be chasing the school that is best for your son, not the school that you think carries the most prestige.
The parallel to Harvard/Yale/Princeton would be what's called the Little 3 - Williams/Amherst/Weslyan. These are three of the best liberal arts colleges in the nation, and very difficult to get into. I would add to that group Middlebury and Swarthmore.
There's no real definition of what constitutes the "Little Ivies," but the closest approximation would probably be the NESCAC schools. However, outside of the ones I listed above, the remainder of the NESCAC, while still outstanding schools, are lower ranked.
All of these schools have different personalities and cultures, though. If you're looking for highly selective schools where your son will be challenged, these are all good ones, but you need to visit them to find the right one for him.
There are other highly selective schools outside of New England. Davidson is an excellent school, and he might find southern culture and weather more appealing.
You should be looking for a place he will thrive, not the one that carries the most cache.
The parallel to Harvard/Yale/Princeton would be what's called the Little 3 - Williams/Amherst/Weslyan. These are three of the best liberal arts colleges in the nation, and very difficult to get into. I would add to that group Middlebury and Swarthmore.
There's no real definition of what constitutes the "Little Ivies," but the closest approximation would probably be the NESCAC schools. However, outside of the ones I listed above, the remainder of the NESCAC, while still outstanding schools, are lower ranked.
All of these schools have different personalities and cultures, though. If you're looking for highly selective schools where your son will be challenged, these are all good ones, but you need to visit them to find the right one for him.
There are other highly selective schools outside of New England. Davidson is an excellent school, and he might find southern culture and weather more appealing.
You should be looking for a place he will thrive, not the one that carries the most cache.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:An atheist wrote a Little Red Book that other atheists used to treat like a holy book.
They got over it pretty quickly and were responsible for less death and suffering than the adherents of the book about Jesus.
By all means, let's minimize millions of deaths and displacements, so long as it involves atheists
Not at all. To call the impact of Mao's little red book a tragedy is even a gross understatement, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't an atheist who wrote, "An atheist wrote a Little Red Book that other atheists used to treat like a holy book." The truth is that it was written by a communist about an ideology called "communism," and had nothing to do with atheism, except for the fact that they saw religion as a competitor for the hearts and minds of the people they were trying to control. Trying to blame that on atheism is a red herring, at best.
However, the communists in China did treat Mao's book as something close to scripture, so let's look at what is supposed to be a real holy book.
My point was that while a great deal of harm was done by Mao's followers, the Chinese abandoned Mao's book as a guiding principle pretty quickly. Despite that, the human rights record in China continues to be atrocious, but if Christians are arguing that at least they're better than the Chinese that's a pretty low bar to get over.
What should we call a thousand years of use of the Bible to justify all kinds of war, massacre, atrocity, suffering, hatred, slavery, etc. that still goes on today? How often does a so-called Christian leader in this country go on TV waving the Bible to explain how some atrocity or tragedy is God's punishment for something? Given everything that book has and continues to be used to justify, is it really that much better?
As Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I agree with what you say. What I think is unlikely, is that there would be an office environment here DC where most people happened to be atheists and happened to talk openly about it, so that they realized they were all atheists. I doubt that would occur except in an organization that was itself atheist -- like the American Atheist association -- which is not in DC.
Thus my guess that it was a Christian trying out a reverse discrimination story.
You want to believe your own mythology, evidently, and the facts (and three different posters) be damned!
This might've been a little more ironic than you intended.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That's what I've told my 6 and 8 year-olds: the basic format of it (penis into vagina, seeds come out, meet egg), and that it's nice and fun to do with a special person when you're old enough (in my mind, that's around 16 or 17, so I've told them most people start around when they drive but some people wait until they're married). Sex has been a fun, special part of my life and I hope my kids have the same experience!
That's way too much for that age, and wtf, 16 or 17? Jesus.
Why do you think that's too much for that age? Haven't your kids asked yet? I think knowing those basics by 8 is pretty typical for an inquisitive child who keeps asking questions.
Not that PP but I would disagree with telling/teaching a 6 year old the bolded statement. I can't imagine telling a 1st grader "sex is fun and I hope that you do it too someday!"
So you're ok with reading them "Everybody Poops!" but not letting them know everybody has sex?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am the opposite - an undercover Christian. The environment I work in is almost all atheists and they make very clear their feelings and negatives attitudes about Christians, so I just stay quiet. Sometimes I feel very guilty about doing so but I have seen a couple other people 'come out' and it has been really ugly. So I just nod and smile. I just walk away from conversations where people are trashing Christianity or mocking a specific person because of their faith. Not very Christian of me to not stand up for them but I am not prepared to handle the consequences of speaking up.
First reaction: doubtful, unless you work for the American atheist association. SOunds more like a Christian taking an opportunity to make atheists look bad
As a fellow atheist, I disagree with you. I think once people in a workplace discovered that most everyone who was there shared their lack of belief there would be much more open conversation about feelings about what various religions/religious leaders are up to, because, let's face it, there are plenty of reasons to make fun of certain religious leaders and their respected hypocrisies.
Conflicts over freedom from religion are in the news a lot more these days, the group building the Satanist sculpture to sit alongside the 10 Commandments and the supposed "black mass" to name just a couple, and I could see those being topics of conversation in a workplace where atheists felt more comfortable (they are in our house, where both DW and I are atheists).
Religion has so infected a lot of our politics, and politics has so infected our daily lives, that I have no trouble imagining those conversations that make the religious OP keep quiet.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That's what I've told my 6 and 8 year-olds: the basic format of it (penis into vagina, seeds come out, meet egg), and that it's nice and fun to do with a special person when you're old enough (in my mind, that's around 16 or 17, so I've told them most people start around when they drive but some people wait until they're married). Sex has been a fun, special part of my life and I hope my kids have the same experience!
That's way too much for that age, and wtf, 16 or 17? Jesus.
According to this article from NBC News: (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37853719/ns/health-sexual_health/t/surprising-sex-statistics/)
When did you lose your virginity?
The average male loses his virginity at age 16.9; females average slightly older, at 17.4. And a new study shows that genetics may be a factor: inherited traits, such as impulsivity, can make a person more or less willing to have sex at an earlier age.
Sources: Kinsey Institute; California State University
And people have seen a face on Mars....
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/
Anonymous wrote:I am the opposite - an undercover Christian. The environment I work in is almost all atheists and they make very clear their feelings and negatives attitudes about Christians, so I just stay quiet. Sometimes I feel very guilty about doing so but I have seen a couple other people 'come out' and it has been really ugly. So I just nod and smile. I just walk away from conversations where people are trashing Christianity or mocking a specific person because of their faith. Not very Christian of me to not stand up for them but I am not prepared to handle the consequences of speaking up.
As an atheist, I'm sorry you're in that situation. We should all try to be more tolerant of each other's views, and judge people on their actions, not their beliefs.
Anonymous wrote:I guess I mean we are not assholes if that is what you are saying. We treat other people as we wish to be treated. By undercover I mean that I put up lights on Christmas to decorate with the rest of the neighborhood, and give communion and confirmation gifts when we are invited to their parties. Maybe that does make us assholes?
No, that makes you normal and good neighbors/friends.
I'm an atheist, and we put up Christmas lights and a tree and have a wonderful holiday.
When a friend's son went through his bar mitzvah, I went to the ceremony, went to the lunch and gave a present. Objecting and saying, "I don't believe in your god and your traditions," would've made me an asshole.
Giving communion/confirmation gifts is celebrating something special in your friends/neighbors' lives. Standing up and saying, "I'm not going to participate because I don't believe in your god," would make you an asshole.
Live your life according to the Golden Rule - whether you believe in a deity or not.
There's no need for you to go out of your way to proclaim your atheism. You don't have to be militant and you don't have to "convert" the believers, but there's no reason for you to shy away from it if the topic comes up (it hardly ever does for me).